Maybe they've been watching U.S. news and have learned from watching John McCain and Harry Reid just how much power a minority can wield...

I think the problem isn't so much the substance, it's the procedure.

The new version won't be in people's hands to read before voting on it.

And it looks like a patch job on a rush job of a hack solution pushed hard by the US team for its own domestic partisan purposes. It's a transparent concession to Sunnis after a transparent exclusion of Sunnis. A constitution pushed out in the interests of short-term politics, not principle.

Other than that, though, I see no problem.

Oh, forgot to mention: the Sunni gripe is not entirely just self-interest. They believe the Constitution is likely to lead to a split of Iraq -- and not in a peaceable way.

And many outsiders agree that is probably true. Presumably you would care about that?

Right?

LOL..Hey Ace, does this mean that the Sunni's are now full fledged members of the "reality-based community"?

It seems like many of them are more deserving of membership in this group than many who claim it.

tubino:

It's a transparent concession to Sunnis after a transparent exclusion of Sunnis.

Moderate Sunnis have been excluded and disenfranchised, by other Sunnis and their foreign jihadi friends. But not by us, and not by the Iraqi government.

I mean the exclusion of Sunnis in the writing of the Constitution. They were excluded from much of the process. This is not controversial.

I have no idea why SJKevin imagines otherwise.

Juan Cole has a take:

The Shiites and Kurds have agreed that the newly elected parliament after December 15 will reopen negotiations with the Sunni Arabs on the constitution. This step was enough to convince the Iraqi Islamic Party to drop its call for a Sunni Arab rejection fo the constitution in the October 15 referendum. This whole episode strikes me as bizarre, since Iraqis are now voting on a constitution that may be subsequently changed at will! As with the Jan. 30 parliamentary elections, in which they had no idea for whom they were voting for the most part, so in the referendum they will have no idea for what they are voting. The Bush administration is just making them jumpt through hoops in hopes that will look good and "democratic" back in Peoria and help Republicans get elected in 06. If the constitution is not ready to be voted on, they should have taken the 6-month extension and worked on it some more. This weird procedure of voting on a document that is riddled with escape hatches such that key issues will be decided later by parliament cannot lead anywhere good.

Juan Cole! Well, that settles everything, then. Because he speaks Arabic, he knows all.

Cordially...

I mean the exclusion of Sunnis in the writing of the Constitution. They were excluded from much of the process. This is not controversial.

Untrue. They were given many more representatives on the drafting committee than their voting would justify. It's their own fault they boycotted; the Kurds and Shi'as gave them more seats and more participation than the ballot would indicate.

I find it amusing that the left is basically arguing for Apartheid Now, Apartheid Forever in Iraq. They just won't be happy until a minority that has repressed a majority for 40 years is put back firmly in tyrannical power.

The Sunnis are a minority. They should get used to that fact. As should Tubino and his pink fellow-travellers.

They believe the Constitution is likely to lead to a split of Iraq -- and not in a peaceable way.

Remember, the US constitution wasn't ratified until a promise was made to amend it, hence the Bill of Rights.

Depending on when the committee meets and how its membership is determined the Sunnis could end up in a better position than they are now, since their involvement is mostly (due to the Sunni boycott) by invitation. They still won't be able to ram anything through without the Shiites and Kurds, but they might have enough power to become a swing bloc.

Bear in mind that this is going though at least one translation and a totally different culture. If a DC politician tells you he'll consider something he's blowing you off, things might be different in the Arab world.

The Sunnis need to count their blessings that the Kurds and Shiites didn't kill them all.
Shut up, sign here and get on with it.

Me? I salute the new Constitution.

I mean the exclusion of Sunnis in the writing of the Constitution. They were excluded from much of the process. This is not controversial.

I have no idea why SJKevin imagines otherwise.

No, SJKevin, don't you see, those mean old Kurds and Shia are hurting the Sunnis' *self esteem*. I mean, why argue and bicker about who genocided whom, when there are Zionists to thwart?

Even if the changes are small and possibly meaningless, Shiite and Kurd leaders are allowing Sunni leaders who have realized that they are losing to lose gracefully. These Sunni leaders are being allowed to go back to their constituents and claim something other than complete failure. If the Sunnis who have participated have nothing to show for it except failure then the hard-core Sunnis who have been trying to persuade Sunnis not to participate will be vindicated.

This way, by giving something (no matter how trivial it might be) Sunnis who are willing to be a part of the new government can show more reluctant Sunnis that they are not going unheard.

So they ratify a constitution which can then be ammended later. You know that sounds just a little familiar. Let's think. Which other country adopted an imperfect constitution that had the built in possiblity of being ammended later. Don't tell me. I'll get it.

The reality-based community won't like this one bit.

You know, if I didn't know better, I'd think Drum was trying to lobby Sunni Iraqis out of voting for the constitution (and into more slaughter by their AQ friends and the Iraqi army)...

Naah.

This weird procedure of voting on a document that is riddled with escape hatches such that key issues will be decided later by parliament cannot lead anywhere good.

Um, our constitution is pretty much the same. There's a lot of amorphous and often self-contradictory language that has to be sorted out by Congress in the political process, and occasionally arbitrated by the courts. E.g., where do you draw the line between state sovereignty and the Commerce Clause? Where do you draw the line between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause? To what extent is the right to bear arms tied to the need for a militia? And so forth.

Your point?

"Who excluded them? Was there a law forbidding Sunnis from voting?"

What are you TALKING about? The vote hasn't even happened yet.

The writing of the Constitution is where the Sunnis were largely excluded. I said that wasn't controversial, and what I meant is that that INTERPRETATION of the events is not controversial. That's what happened. Not entirely, but to a large degree.

The autonomy favored by the Kurds and Shi'ites is stronger than the federalism holding it together. All this silliness about giving offense, self-esteem etc. is just failing to understand the real possibility that Iraq may NOT hold together.

And while you might find it kind of amusing to think of the distress that might cause the royal family is Saudi Arabia, or the Turks,...

it's really not very amusing to think of a civil war opening into a broader ethnic battle involving regions covering most of the oil in the world.

I've always felt that the stakes are MUCH higher in this case than in Vietnam -- but the planning, resolve, seriousness on the part of the Bush administration is sorely lacking.

What are you TALKING about? The vote hasn't even happened yet.

He's talking about the vote where the Sunnis effectively excluded themselves from the process of participating in the drafting of the constitution (but were invited to participate anyway).

The autonomy favored by the Kurds and Shi'ites is stronger than the federalism holding it together.

How do you know? The Kurds and Shiites have made extraordinary efforts to keep the Sunnis on board.

All this silliness about giving offense, self-esteem etc. is just failing to understand the real possibility that Iraq may NOT hold together.

Maybe not. If the Sunnis end up squatting on a patch of sand with no oil, they will have only themselves to blame. Meanwhile, the Kurds and Shiites will fondly remember America as their liberaters, and democracy will continue to spread in the Middle East.

it's really not very amusing to think of a civil war opening into a broader ethnic battle involving regions covering most of the oil in the world.

Rather than running off at the mouth, you can get data on proven oil reserves here. There is no chance that a civil war in Iraq could jeopardize "most of the oil in the world." Unless the dumb Canucks get involved. They are second in proven oil reserves (behind Saudi Arabia, ahead of Iraq).

I've always felt that the stakes are MUCH higher in this case than in Vietnam -- but the planning, resolve, seriousness on the part of the Bush administration is sorely lacking.

You're right that the stakes are higher. If you think LBJ is an example of planning, resolve and seriousness compared to the Bush adminstration's undertaking in Iraq, you're a frigging idiot.

Oh, I forgot. You are an idiot.

Dave in Texas:

I promise, I will no longer reply to Tub. You are right -- starving the troll works best.

Must... not... feed... troll...

What are you TALKING about? The vote hasn't even happened yet.

The writing of the Constitution is where the Sunnis were largely excluded.
Uh, remember all those Republican senators waving around purple fingers? Do you remember why they were doing that? Iraqi election ring a bell? Do you remember the purpose of that election? Drafting a constitution ring a bell?

As far as who was excluded in the writing of the constitution, what does that matter?
Most of the forebears of the people living in this country were also excluded, because they hadn't come here yet.
But the Constitution still applies to them and their descendants.

Oh, and STARVE THAT THING.

This weird procedure of voting on a document that is riddled with escape hatches such that key issues will be decided later by parliament cannot lead anywhere good.

Good thing the US constitution has stood without any changes since its inception isn't it. Wow, I was concerned for a minute there we might be in trouble. I would hate for us to do anything that would lead to things not good.

Oh, and STARVE THAT THING.

[at the most recent Troll Feeders Anonymous meeting]

Hi. My name is Geoff and I've stopped feeding the troll for one week.

Hi Geoff.

Hi, my name is Michael, and I've stopped feeding the troll for one week.

Hi Michael.

Hey Michael:

Thanks for the clarification on the other thread-that-must-not-be-named.

Okay smart alecks, if you think the Sunnis were NOT excluded, just how do you explain the frantic negotiation/appeasement that the US has been pushing for weeks, to accomodate Sunni concerns?????

Jeez you all got shit for brains sometimes.

Hi Geoff!

Remember when you claimed that you couldn't find anything solid to show the falsity of the unemployment numbers? Here you go. Be sure to note the link to the full PDF.

Did you ever find any evidence of accounting for the $8.8 billion? No? Well, turns out there's MORE. Yup, another $100M +. Gone. Missing. Unaccounted for.

Another poor showing from the right. Ya got NOTHING. Buncha dickless quitters. (I'm starting to catch on to the insults you use here, no?)

--------------

Still no posts about the Plame investigation getting to the WHIG folks. NOW it's getting interesting! At the heart of the Plame case is the WH using all weapons to protect the real story of fabricating propaganda. Start here.

Finally the MSM just MIGHT start looking at its uncritical role of serving up WH propaganda to sell the war.

And Judith Miller spilled her guts to Fitzgerald. Can Cheney be far behind?

On topic: I didn't have time to go into this earlier, but it really should be pointed out that the MAIN Sunni concern with the Constitution is that it seems to allow provinces to create their own CONFEDERACIES, with control of their own resources. Imagine if Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico created their own confederacy, with control of all the oil and other resources?

If Iraq falls apart, with the southern Shiite confederacy, backed by Iran, warring with the Saudi-backed Sunnis, you supporters of this flawed constitution will of course deny any connection.

Of course. Amnesia. How convenient for you.

Iraq's oil output is down from 2.8bb/day to 1.8 or so. In the scenario above, the world daily output of some 80-85bb could be reduced by as much as 20% due to guerrilla attacks on pipelines and refineries. Which would trigger a real, honest-to-gosh depression, affecting all of us.

Some of you seem to think this is a game of cheering for your favorite team. Some of you need to grow up a little and look at the consequences of the policies you endorse. Instead you're spouting off about things you know nothing about.

Quick quiz: what is Sistani's position on the new constitution? What is the position of the SCIRI (Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution In Iraq, who won big time in last elections)?

Hint: if your answer is that it doesn't matter, you don't know the first thing about the topic of this post.

Yeah, I'm sick and tired of all the pro-war arguments that are based on nothing but ignorance. Look where THAT got us.

I vaguely recall some historical precedent somewhere, and MMDeuce's post also sounds vaguely correct......but I've got to go read the NYTimes and watch CNN...

I just found out that billmon has a pretty good explanation about the constitutional deal. I was going to cut and paste, but just go read it.

cthulhu,

The parallel with the US constitution is Bo-o-o-gus. What is flawed in the Iraqi constitution (besides the obvious problem that people are asked to vote on something they can't get copies of, determined in violation of Iraq's own rules...) is that even basic limits of branch powers are not delineated. The confederacy problem I addressed above is a related example.

Not the same in the US constitution, even with the Bill of Rights tradeoff.

Does anybody else notice these long, blank, posts that keep popping up in the thread?

Weird. Must be a bug in the system.

Imagine if Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico created their own confederacy, with control of all the oil and other resources?

This is so incredibly dumb on so many levels that I think I need to take the pledge here.

I ain't feeding that.

"This is so incredibly dumb on so many levels that I think I need to take the pledge here."

Uh, yeah, that's the point. It's idiotic to write a constitution that allows the equivalent of states to form their own confederacies.

Yet the Iraqi constitution appears to do just that.

But hey, reality just isn't for conservatives, is it. It just ... doesn't register for you.

Anyone know a conservative blog where folks aren't afraid of a a little reality?